TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Atul Gupta (Advocate) Shri Hrishikesh (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. 2. This is the third round of litigation. Show cause notice dated 01 October, 1992 was issued to the appellant, a manufacturer of printed pouches, alleging that they were required to include the cost of printing cylinders by way of amortization in the assessable value as the said cost of the printing cylinders was met by the purchaser which was collected by the appellant separately by way of debit notes etc. 3. In the earlier round, this Tribunal had confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner vide the present impugned order dated 30 November, 2010, confirmed the duty demand alongwith penalty deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Hence the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel states that the issue is no longer res-integra. Under similar facts and circumstances relating to Mutual Industries Ltd [2000 (117) ELT 578 (Tri.-LB)] also engage in similar activity of moulding plastic components when using moulds. The plastic moulded items like cabinet for TV, photocopy machine etc., became liable to tax with effect from March, 1986. As the finished goods were tailor made, according to the specifications of the buyer for manufacturing such moulded components. Mutual Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The conclusions reached by us as stated above do not go to support the order impugned in this appeal. As stated earlier, the period covered by the show cause notice was from 1-10-1986 to 31-8-1990. Show cause notice was issued on 25-10-1991. While issuing this notice extended period of five years was invoked. The question is whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period. In the show cause notice it is admitted that the appellant company was filing classification list during the period from October, 1986 to August 1990. It is also admitted that the manufacturer filed price list declaring selling price of the goods and determining the assessable value for the purpose of levy. From this admission made in the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 31-8-1990. The show cause notice was dated 25-10-1991 that is, more than one year after the period mentioned in the notice. The show cause notice is clearly barred by limitation. The demand made in the show cause notice is not legally sustainable. Therefore, we hold that the proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to show cause notice dated 25-10-1991 is clearly barred by limitation. Consequently the impugned order has to be set aside in its entirety. We do so. Appeal is allowed in the above lines. 5. The learned counsel also points out referring to Circular No. 170/4/96 CX dated 23 January, 1996 wherein the Board clarified the issue of calculation of assessable value of castings wherein the patterns/moulds et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving heard the parties I find that the learned Commissioner have erred in observing that there was neither any ambiguity nor the situation is fluid as regards inclusion of the cost/price of moulds/dies etc., in the final product. Under the facts and circumstances, I hold that the issue was only of interpretation and there were conflicting views taken by this Tribunal and the matter was pending before the Larger Bench, and such order by Larger Bench was pronounced in the case of Mutual Industries (supra) only on 16 March, 2000. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
